Terror: Land of the free?

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

(first draft, comments are welcome, text part of a series. pls read in order.)
Terror: Why do Muslims commit acts of terror?
Terror: Does the West commit acts of terror?
Terror: Land of the free?

Intro

The previous text probably does not conform with the world view many in the West have. As a free thinking person you might have the following reaction:

The view presented does not conform with my daily life. We are not controlled by power hungry industrialists. We have freedom. We have free speech. There are free elections and multiple political parties. My society is not motivated by greed and consumerism. We have human rights and social programs.

Well, let me explain. We live in a two faced society. There is the public face you just described, the just society, and the hidden face of exploitation and control.

The paradox

The main result of the European enlightenment period was a transfer of control from organized religion to the individual. Man became the master of his own fate, instead of God. We found out we could do things ourselves, instead of relying upon the Church. This resulted in a number of developments that had both 'positive' and 'negative' outcomes, depending upon whom you ask. The rejection of rule by nobility, humanism, the rights of the individual, democracy, free competition, private industry, etc.

One of these developments was a strong sense of social justice. The right to pursue happiness unhindered by church and state, and free from exploitation by others. This sense of social justice clashes with the need for control. You can't maximize your own control if you are not allowed to take it away from others. This creates a paradox. You can't have a society where both social justice and the pursuit of control at the cost of others are prevalent.

And yet we have one.

The powers that be

People seek out people that are like themselves and have similar goals. Those that hold positions of power are no different. They band together to further their collective interest. This is natural human behavior.

In the Netherlands the rich members of the Dutch East India company held great sway over national policy during our Golden Age in the 17th century. In the British Empire the upper class formed cabals to help each other out, dividing positions and land in the colonies amongst themselves. In the Roman Republic there were the wealthy families like the Julii en Scipii that banded together in order to rule. In modern times you have the groups of politicians and industrialists that work together, like Dick Cheney and Halliburton, in order to award themselves government contracts. Fox News, which should be an independent news organization somehow only broadcasts a conservative agenda.

These groups of powerful people we call cabals. A cabal is a group of people that seek to further their own interests outside of the public view. The reason for secrecy is that their actions clash with either the law or public morality. Cabals can be found anywhere and everywhere. Some cabals are an open secret, like the Roman families were or the British upper class is. Others are more secretive, like the military industrial complex and their politicians in the United States are or the Oligarchs were during the Yeltsin years in Russia.

Do remember there is nothing odd about these groups. It is natural human behavior to band together and help each other out.

So how do these cabals deal with all of our freedoms and our sense of social justice? Well secrecy is not the only means by which these ''powers that be'' maximize their control at the cost of you and me.

The solutions for dealing with freedom

The powers that be found several ways to circumvent or nullify our perceived freedoms.

Free thinking. Europe developed a tradition of free thinking during the enlightenment period. This needed to be countered by the powers that be. Free thought brings the risk of non conformity. The solution was programming via commercials and mass media. How do you keep your workers consuming and distracted? You tempt them with commercials to buy more. You provide them with easy access to entertainment based on primary emotions. Super hero movies, talent shows, sitcoms, etc. And you give them something to fear via the news media. The Soviets, black people, terrorists, the Chinese, diseases, and so on.

The powers that be improved upon the old Roman axiom: in order to control the masses you need to give them bread and games. It's now bread, games, and an enemy.

Free speech. The right to say what you want seems dangerous to any would be ruler. An individual might contradict your story, and pull others in with him, thus undermining your power. However this threat can be easily circumvented by simply providing for many, many, many voices.

Sometimes this happens naturally. Take the Internet. Where in the past dedicated individuals might make the effort to set up a movement which contradicts the official story, on the Internet lazy keyboard warriors like me in their millions create a forest of opinions, thus rendering them all ineffective.

In other cases organizations are created. Take Fox News. It's primary mission is to provide alternative story lines to support their overlords. The counter divergent political messages, social justice warriors and scientific facts. And there are many, many more official and unofficial news organizations.

The Internet together with the news media are enough to nullify the effects of free speech. It doesn't matter that there are many critical thinkers who publish books, blog and make documentaries. As long as the majority in more focused on their own material and social situation and believe their society is just, there is no danger. The odd public issue that pops up can be resolved by counter messages, diverting blame, diversions, etc. While George Bush and Dick Cheney were widely criticized for their handling of the Iraq war, the world wide news media ignored the military industrial complex which made billions.

Free choice. Free choice is simply nullified by providing the available choices. These available choices are created and enforced via companies, government, and the media controlled popular culture.

Free elections. America and Europe developed a tradition of multi party free elections. Anybody could go into politics and win elections. This could not stand. Vital interests could be threatened by the wrong man at the helm. However politicians and parties need money in order to operate. For the industrial cabals in America this was the solution. Simply buy them all. This has been a fact of life since Eisenhower.

In other countries this approach was not possible due to the legal limits set on contributions. In a lot of European countries parties do often act in the public interest. However the politicians do form cabals themselves, helping each other out with lucrative jobs and positions. And industrial cabals do succeed in poaching the politicians with promises of high paying jobs after their political career.

Free competition. Via the economic model of free competition you create a steady stream of new products and new markets, which means more and more profits, always increasing. Greed provides the incentive. Inventors and companies feel the need to out do the competition in order to maximize their control.

The competition model however means that you often cut into each others profits. Unless you are in a new or expanding market, your companies market share is increased at the cost of another. This benefits the customer, but not you as a C.E.O. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, with the overall effect being zero. And you want all the profits, not just a share that changes in size over time. Furthermore there is the risk of your company going under.

The solution are diversified ownership and capital. If you control more than one company, you benefit no matter what. If you have capital you can steer the outcome of competition. You can withhold or give loans and investments, buy up competitors, undercut the market prices, etc.

This translates into shareholding and banking. So the early industrial cabals transformed from people that ran individual enterprises into people that own many things. Banks and stocks. C.E.O.'s are now simply employees.

Obviously this circumvention of free competition is not air tight. Many companies successfully withstood buyout attempts. Facebook, Microsoft, etc. However once these companies became industry leaders they themselves reverted to buying out and undercutting any startup that could remotely be a threat. Ever wonder why there is only one consumer operating system sold world wide?

Fairness for all. The world does not have enough raw materials to sustain mass consumption for all humans. The solution lies with distract, hide and conquer. Specifically the distract & hide part. In secret, the West robs many other countries of their natural resources, purchasing these at bargain prices, or mining them ourselves. The whole of Africa is a resources free buffet. Of course Joe-public can't accept the fact that his new microwave was made by poor Chinese workers from resources purchased off corrupt governments and dictators. The solution lies with the Media. We simply do not inform the public. And when news does break, it's just a drop in the ocean of propaganda and distraction. From the news we all know Africans are stupid, warlike, always hungry and uncivilized. Who cares if some Nigerians are poisoned by an oil company. The new IPhone is of much, much greater concern.

Public interest. There are many public interests. Defense, health, education etc. Things we all need, and need done well. These interests can be at odd with the quest of the individual to maximize it's control. Take the fast food industry. This industry found out that food can be made addictive by adding sugar and certain fats. We as humans have evolved to select sugar and fat above anything else. It's an old adaptation from the time of the hunter gather, when a quick boost from these scarce resources could mean the difference between survival and death. However we are not build to handle large quantities. Our liver, kidneys and other organs suffer from overuse. We develop diabetes and other diseases. Despite the public interest in limiting access to these types of food, fast food restaurants chains have only been expanding. A powerful lobby from the fast food cabal has thus far successfully prevented legislation.

Another example of success is the health industry cabal. They found out that they can charge ridiculous prices for medicines, way, way above cost price, as long all companies do it. People after all need to get better, no matter what. While in theory there are several large companies that produces medicine and prices should be low due to competition, this is not the case.

An example of failure is the tobacco industry. It's lobby could not prevent legislation.

An example of success of a political cabal is the French-German axis in European politics. Nothing gets decided without their say-so.

Terrorism is also a good example of successes gained by political and industrial cabals. As can be read in the text about Muslim terrorists, there are plenty of reasons why Muslims can justly be upset with the West. These issues produces a steady yet very small stream of new terrorists that carry out the occasional attack in the West. Yet instead of dealing with the social injustices the West helped create in the Middle East, we add fuel on the fire discriminating against Muslims and bombing various countries. We also continue to support Saudi Arabia with large sums of money and military hardware, while the Saudi government is the driving force behind the spread of Wahhabism. Wahhabism used to be a minor movement in Islam, a bit like Pentecostalism in Christianity. It believes in the absolute correctness of the scripture, yet is focussed soley on phrases containing instructions for repression, excluding the majority content of the Koran which focusses on being a decent loving human being. Wahhabism is now wide spread in Europe and the Middle East. It is the doctrine of ISIS.

Our strange behavior seems inexplicable. We create this image of the evil Muslim that needs to be fought, yet contrinu to provide the few actual evil Muslims with means and cause. However if you think of the billions and billions of dollars spend worldwide combatting terrorism you might find an explanation. The military/security cabal in the USA wages a very strong pro Saudi and anti Muslim lobby in US politics.

Soft Control

Over time the powers that be have learned how to leave our freedoms intact and yet control us.

You can still think for yourself, if you make the effort to put down your Iphone.

You can still say what you want, but your voice gets lost in the crowd, and most people won't listen anyway.

You can chose what you want to do, from the choices provided.

You can pick your political candidate, but chances are that he or she is just a chocolate or vanilla flavor of the same stuff: cabal ice cream.

You can compete all you want, but chances are you will be swallowed up or owned.

Fairness for all seems far off, but as long as you don't realize that your new Samsung phone is related to suffering in Africa, it doesn't really matter. At best you shake your head in despair at the problems other countries experience.

So how do they do it? Most importantly there is no need to clamp down on everything. As a member of the powers that be, all you are interested in is to maximize your own chances for survival. This means control over resources and general control over the behavior of your host population. Anything that does not impede your control does not matter and is thus allowed to occur.

Gay rights? Fine.

Legalized Marijuana? Fine.
Black lives matter? Not fine. Might hinder prison profits and the 'omg-a-black-person' fear factor which is an important control on the majority white population.

Abortion? Fine, just let the religious zealots duke it out with the liberals.

The method by which control is exercised by the cabals of the present day could be called ''soft control''. Direct oppression brings with it the risk of revolution and is very expensive. Leaving the individual sense of freedom intact but providing the framework in which this freedom is allowed to operate is much safer. And allowing many things to occur naturally, and then steering them with a soft unseen hand, is much cheaper.

Outcome

We do live in a free society, and yet we don't. Our freedoms only exists within a framework the powers that be provide for us. Economic, social and political developments in the West are controlled by various cabals that seek to maximize their control. The result of which is that the majority of the population is focused on consumption and fearful of imaginary threats. This control is not absolute. Occasionally things do change. However the nature of soft control is that it need not be absolute, as long as it is wide spread and largely hidden. The occasional loss is more that compensated by gains elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our free society is not as prevalent as we like to think. We are only partly free, within a framework decided for us by those that are successful in maximizing their control. However, this is only a natural outcome of what defines our society: individualism.
The acts of terrorism are carried out both by Western hands and those of Muslims. The mechanism that creates the terror however is not natural but artificial with the sole purpose of maxizing the control of groups of powerfull people that own the military industrial complexes and security companies. ISIS is nothing more than a sales pitch.

Terror: Does the West commit acts terror?

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

(first draft, comments are welcome, text part of serie:)
Terror: Why do Muslims commit acts of terror?
Terror: Does the West commit acts of terror?
Terror: Land of the free?

Intro

Now that we found some possible reasons why Muslims might commit acts of terrors, let's make a list of characteristics of the West that might motivate us to do the same.

The list

1. Individualism. We in the West think it is all about ME. We are not part of a whole, but individuals. Our fortune depends upon our own actions. Sometimes this gives us incentive to choose taking over sharing.

2. Control. Closely tied into the psychology of individualism, and generally into the psyche of the human mind, is the need for control. All animals seek out maximum control in order to survive, and we are no different. Any perceived threat to our existence has to be dealt with (real or imaginary).
In some societies this control is outsourced. Usually to a deity. People accept that they themselves as having limited control. However a deity will ensure on their behalve that everything is going to be allright as long as they follow a certain path of behavior. Thus control over one's life is gained via indirect means.
During the enlightenment period, we in the West found out that man controls his own destiny directly. You yourself as an individual need to get that control in order to make things workout allright.

3.Competition. Individualism combined with the need for control produces selfish people in constant competition. The individual is responsible for your it's own share of both material and social power.  In order to maximize it's own chances of survival, it's control, the individual needs to compete with others. In this proces there are winners and losers. These winners achieve control over their own destiny and those of others.

4. Rampant consumerism. The industrial revolution gave birth to mass production. Initially a lot of products made lasted forever. Factory owners were not content with this. A lot more money could be extracted if products broke down after a period of use. And more money equals more control. The producers of light bulbs were the first to fix the issue. They came together in a secret conference in Europe, and decided on profitable life time cycle for their products. From now on, light bulbs would burn out after X time.

This solution has been copied by virtually all producers across all fields of mass production. However, in order to further maximize profits one more thing was needed. A consumer willing to buy and buy and buy. Not just replacements, but new types and new versions of products. Hence commercials. We are bombarded with Pavlovian programming for the new, improved, extra, fashionable, status giving, ultimate and comfortable.
Industrialist are the winners of the competition between individuals. They run the companies (and in varying degrees the countries). For these industrialist, like for any Western person, life is all about ME. In order to increase their control over their own destiny, they need to increase their dominance over the consumer. They are willing to program whole populations into mindless consumerism and destroy the planet in the process with masses upon masses of waste.

5.Greed. As mentioned earlier, we seek to maximize our chances of survival. One way we can do that is to gather as much materials and power as we can. Throughout history kings and sultans conquered and looted country after country, increasing their power over people and their material wealth. Our modern industrialists are no different. If they can get resources via less than fair means they do it. It's all about their amount of control. This includes labor and material resources both in their own homeland and abroad.

Outcome

These characteristics of the West, individualism, individual control, competition, consumerism and greed might motivate any individual to seek improvement of their own situation at the cost of hurting others. We call this exploitation. The exploitation becomes organised via competition. The winners of the competition race impose their models of behavior upon the losers. Whether they are consumers or (unwilling) resource providers.

Organized exploitation can produce acts that terrorise individuals and populations. These acts of terror can be direct or indirect. In the previous century Belgium exploited the Kongo in a most brutal way during their quest to control the worldwide rubber market. They terrorised the native population by cutting of hands and separating families. In modern times Brittain, France and America supported brutal dictators in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East in order to exploit natural resources like oil.

Though at first glance we might not recognize these acts as terrorism, the effect of these acts is the same. Terror. It hardly matters if you are terrorized by a suicide bomber, the secret police of a dictatorship or via collatoral damage caused by bombs from Western aircraft.

Conclusion

Our terrorists aren't named Ahmed and they are not from a suburb of Paris. Our terrorists are our 1%. They are winners of the competition game.

Questions

Of course the view of the West portrayed in this text does not conform at all with our own self image. After all we are the land of the free and home of the brave. The source of justice and human rights. In the next text we will explore this paradox in our society.

Terror: Why do Muslims commit acts of terror?

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

(first draft, comments are welcome, text part of serie:)
Terror: Why do Muslims commit acts of terror?
Terror: Does the West commit acts of terror?
Terror: Land of the free?

Intro

Ever wonder how a human being could come to the point of blowing up another? Specifically Muslims? Let's put a few things we know about people, the history of the Middle East and Islam together and see if we can make some headway.

1. Orthodox Islam. There are always periods of expansion and contraction in the practiced amount of free thinking when it comes to religion. Islam has had it's progressive periods. For some time Islam has been in a period of contraction. This means that people focus more and more on the original rule book at the expense of outside views and free thinking. This increases the chance of intolerance. You can only compare another persons behavior to this one rule book, and it's your religious duty to dislike them if they don't measure up. An understanding attitude towards different ways of living is discouraged by the community. The rules are the rules. Now what do you see if you are a strict Muslim and you take look at the West? Sinners, sinners, sinners.

Obviously across the Islamic world attitudes vary immensely. While Iran and Tunisia are very modern countries, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen are very much into the old school. Let's move ahead keeping a strict orthodox Muslim in mind.

2. Western exploitation. In the far flung past, Islam has tried and partly succeeded to conquer Europe. The Moors conquered almost all of Spain, and the Ottomans knocked on the gates of Vienna. However, since the 1800's technology gave us in the West such an advantage that we started to colonize everybody everywhere. As good Christians it was our duty to bring ''civilization'' to the world, and relieve our fellow human beings of their natural resources and labor (nothing is for free in capitalism). After the 1950's the Europeans started leaving the Middle East, however occupation was replaced by a system of dictators. These dictators usually enjoyed either Western or Soviet support. The meddling never really stopped. The casualty list still grows on a daily basis (people that die). Take a look at Israel for instance. So, all in all a good reason to hate the West.

Obviously people meddling in another peoples affairs is nothing new. All Islamic nations have done the same towards other nations, or their own people. The ancient Egyptians meddled all over the place. The Romans meddled with the entire known world.. Ever heard about Arab slavery? That's right. Europeans did not invent enslaving Africans... We learned from the experts.
Meddling is a people thing, not a behavior linked to one race or religion. That said, people mostly live in the now, and forget about history. Since the West is the Top Dog at the moment, and is responsible for a sizeable chunk of the contemporary meddling, we are hated as the sole perpetrators.
So now we got a strict orthodox Muslim who is a bit annoyed with Western meddling. Let's take on the next topic.

3. Middle Eastern inferiority complex. In the past, Islam was the club to belong to. Great Empires (Caliphates) sprung from the original tribe of Muhammad. These achieved world domination in military power, science, art and overall culture. Muslims used to be the shit (American expression meaning the best). All regions and all peoples of the world had these episodes of greatness. The natural rise and fall of Empires.
If your glory days are behind you, a person can become envious to see someone else be the Top Dog. Especially if you are invaded or the subject of meddling. Why was the great Islamic culture not able to resists the British and the French taking over the Middle East? Why can America today get away with so much meddling? This has to hurt. A defensive explanation is in order. Resentment against the West for this reason is worldwide. The West is powerful, but they have no culture, no values...
Our strict orthodox Muslim now not only hates the West because of meddling, but has to find a way to explain the power difference. What might be next? Let's take a look.

4. Second class citizenship. All Empires have had their undesirables. People who are less. Second class citizens. The Berbers in Morocco, the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Arabs in the Ottoman Empire, the British in the Roman Empire, the Uygurs in China, the Armenians in Turkey, et cetera. These people do not get the good jobs. They are not invited to the good parties. They are looked down upon. The Western Empire has a lot of these people. Africans, Asians... and now Muslims. And the condecending attitude is not limited just to our own Citizens. World wide our politicians often treat people in their own nations as thrash. Usually the second class ego is a bit hurt by all this condescending going on. Another reason to dislike the West for our strict Muslim.

5. Individual psychology. As a strict Muslim you tend to be a bit upset when it comes to the West. Clearly the Western people are not good Muslims. They do not follow the correct rulebook. In fact, technically, they are all sinners and infidels. It's hard to endure these unbelievers proclaiming greatness all the time, when you yourself have had such a glorious past. When these uncultured barbarians also start meddling in your internal affairs your hands might tremble with frustration, on occasion. However most people have a family, and with a family comes family concerns. Work, taking care of the kids, visiting grandma, etc. No matter how annoyed you might be with the West, there is no real motivation to give it all up and start suicide bombing something.

Now here is the thing. Not everyone has a family, a job, or a decent standard of living. Not everyone is a well adjusted individual with a good support system. Some people are unhappy and have no hope of improvement. These people are traditionally vulnerable to (self)indoctrination. If there is a way to quickly become a great person that does great things and has a great future (in this case Walhalla), they tend to take it. Now what did Hitler tell the Germans again?

Outcome

Let's take a look at Aziz. Aziz lives in Saudi Arabia. All his life he had to obey the rules. Anyone that stepped outside the lines was automatically deemed a bad person and in need of severe punishment. All his life he has been taught the superiority of Islam. All his life the West has been the great Satan. An evil force that oppresses good Muslims everywhere. Muslims, of course, have never done wrong. Except the fake Muslims in Iran and Pakistan. They also need to die. When Aziz is asked by his Imam to join the good fight on his 18th birthday, Aziz starts dreaming of dying for the cause. A quick flight to Lebanon, a drive across the border and the righteous fight begins. Black flag in hand.

Let's take a look at Ahmed. Ahmed lives in the suburbs of Paris. Nothing was expected of Ahmed at school. No one gave him the slightest hint he could achieve anything. Achievement after all is for rich white French kids, not colored people. His parents don't speak French. They work all day, and when they get home, whatever Ahmed has done at school that day they can't relate to. There are no rules for what happens outside the home. There is no incentive, supervision or punishment. All white people do when they meet Ahmed is walk by, averting their gaze. As any African American would, Ahmed started to hang out with other disgruntled youths. Gang banging. Low self esteem acted out on the community...

One day a friend invites him to join a specific Muslim discussion group on Facebook. Strictly hush-hush. No telling Dad. Here Ahmed learns that he is indeed a valuable person. It's the world around Ahmed that is wrong. Muslims are the unjustly oppressed in an inferior society. As long as he follows the true path, he will achieve great things and earn huge rewards. That true path is Jihad. Now Ahmed is a somebody. A hero to himself, a news update to you, cannon fodder to his recruiter, a subway explosion to his victims and tears to his mother...

Conclusion 

Is it really so strange that people destroy people when you add it all up?

Let's continue our journey and examine why the West also might commit acts of terror. After all, that is only fair.

Better understanding evolution by changing the popular focus

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

Better understanding evolution by changing the popular focus

(this text is a first draft, any comments are welcome.)

Introduction

Charles Darwin. The father of the evolution theory. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, random mutation, sexual selection. A well known name and well known concepts. We all know that individuals in a population vary slightly due to genetic drift, random mutation, random recombination and a few other mechanisms. Some of these individuals are better adapted to survive in an environment than others. This includes sexual ability, the ability to secure a mate and reproduce, in effect the reproductive rate. These individuals are the ones that pass on their genes the most. Species change gradually over time, getting better and better adapted to their environment. Sometimes this results in evolutionary races where one species tries to out do another.

When an environment changes, it can suddenly wipe out whole species, leaving only alive those individuals and those species which possess the traits necessary to survive in the new circumstances.
These are the notions that live in todays popular scientific discourse across multiple disciplines and in the popular media (the notions in the field itself might differ).

Our current popular paradigm states:

Natural selection via survival of the fittest.

Focus:

Competition between individuals and species.

Mechanism:

Sexual selection of succesful adaptations gained through random genetic alteration. Variations exist in any population. Some individuals have a higher rate of reproduction. Their genes offer the best combination of adaptation to the environment, fertility and sexual attractiveness. These individuals can pass on their unique traits more succesfully and gradually replace others, thus altering the species.

Theory:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations by means of natural selection which in turn operates via the mechanism of survival of the fittest random genetic alteration.

Fittest here is meant as the most succesful in reproduction, not necessarily the strongest.

Sources of the popular notions for evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
http://www.livescience.com/topics/evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_0
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080622111809AAZsx7G

Challenge

I claim that the popular focus for evolution theory is wrong. I propose that the most important pressure source behind evolution is change in the biophysical environment across space and time. Organisms for which a change in circumstances is significant will change on a functional level whereas organisms for which a change is not significant will merely expand existing capabilities and features. Only via changing circumstances can all life be explained. It is the mechanism behind creating new species. Adaption, survival of the fittests, random mutation and recombination, these are just some of the supporting mechanisms that allow species to change. If the media focus shifted from these supporting mechanisms toward the main cause behind evolution, the broad popular multi discipline discourse on evolution could change for the better.

Of course, this is a bold statement and might rub people the wrong way. And i am not exactly schooled in evolution theory, so i might be talking out of my backside. Perhaps what i state is already very well known. Then again, this is the Internet and this is just a blog.

I came to this theory because i had trouble understanding how the mechanism of evolution that are popularized in media could ever have had enough time (alteration cycles) to produce some of the functional aspects organism have that seem so useful that they could be interpreted as man made. There had to be something missing. Of course this was just a feeling or a mere guess. Yet it made me try to reconstruct how evolution might happen.

Biophysical circumstances as the main evolutionary pressure

Natural selection via changing circumstances

Did you ever wonder why some animals seem to have such useful appendices? Take the crab. It has an armored shell to protect itself. It has large claws to pick stuff up and defend itself. It's eyes are on stilts. This creature seems almost like something that is designed by a human. Our engineers designed many mechanical devices for us that are similar to the claws of a crab. Like diggers, cranes, etc. We also made armored vehicles to protect ourselves from gunfire. Now the key question is: how would you (randomly or otherwise) mutate a bacteria into a tank with claw? Into something that seems so purposefully designed? How many cycles of reproduction and alteration would you need to achieve this? Given that the biophysical circumstances an organism lives in do not change?

Let's put it another way. You have a shark population in the ocean. Species X. You can easily imagine, that those individuals that are slightly faster, more agile and bigger might dominate. In other words, the species gets bigger and faster. Fins change form over time for more speed. Mouths, eyes, etc. do the same. So the original humble species X might evolve into a huge creature like a great white which has a big mouth, or a mako which is very fast. But why on Gods earth would it ever crawl out of the ocean? Or develop lungs? Why would changes that have no use be rewarded and build into species altering appendices that have a function the original species never needed to survive? Oceanic circumstances have remained fairly constant for millions of years at a stretch, with some variation in temperature and salinity. No need to reward individuals with oddly shaped fins that allow you to crawl in the deep ocean. Yet there is the epaulette shark.

Changing circumstances across space

Here we see that the popular focus for evolution theory is wrong. It's not only about survival of the fittest and genetic alteration. These are mere mechanics. The driving engine are the characteristics of the environment: circumstances. The reason a fish that can crawl is rewarded is that it can occupy a new circumstance: land.
What defines a new circumstance you might ask?  Any available difference to the original biophysical environment a species originated in that rewards a genetic variant of the original form. It can be a layer of colder water under a layer of warmer water. It can be a different type of food in the same layer of water. Another options is that the layer changes due to an event like tectonic plate movement.

Let's now take a look now how circumstances as opposed to just random alteration and survival of the fittest can far better explain the rate of evolution, the multitude of species and the designed appearance of life forms.

Basic setup

Suppose you have a bacteria of type B1 in environment E1. See picture 1.

-Cycle is the (random or otherwise) alteration cycle. An alteration cycle is the time it takes changes in the DNA to produce a functional difference in an organism.

-E1 is an environment at 10 meters of depth in the ocean, with rocks along the bottom of type 1.

-The bacteria of the type B1 has a flagellum to move it, pili to grip a surface and a membrane to conduct material interaction with the environment, letting food pass through but keeping out salt. These features are all adapted for survival in E1.

Adaptation and reward

If the environment remains the same what adaptation would be rewarded? There is no need for a thicker membrane, that just costs more food. The same goes for different pili. However, a faster rate of movement might get you more food. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B2: larger flagellum.

If you follow the current focus of evolution theory, eventually you would just get bacteria with larger flagella. The other adaptations are not rewarded and lose ground in the population.

However, suppose that next to environment 1 (E1) there is another one. E2. This one has a different rock type that requires extra grip. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B3: pili of a shape that provides more grip. In this case hook-like pili.

Similar, there could be an adjacent environment to E1 called E3. This is a deeper environment. The pressure is higher. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B4: thicker membrane. 

picture1: click to enlarge.

Now let's continue to picture 2. We continue from E2. If everything else remains the same, B3 would evolve into B6 which has a larger flagellum to catch more food.

Suppose in the adjacent environment E4 there is more salt. That would result in B7, a bacteria that can survive the higher salinity via a thicker membrane. If everything else again remains the same, B7 would evolve to B8 with a larger flagellum during Cycle 3.

If you now look back at picture 1, do note that the bacteria B1 from E1 would just be the same always if no circumstances changed, except with larger and larger flagellum. In E4 B8 has this larger flagellum but also pili that provide more grip and a thicker membrane.

picture2: click to enlarge.

The evolution rate

We can surmise that environmental changes over space contribute greatly to the outcomes of the random alteration reward system. Many more alterations are rewarded. So you have more change with the same amount of random alteration cycles.

In picture 1 B1 does not die out, because E1 continues, it just grows faster. However E2 and E3 produce a fundamentally different species. These in turn also grow faster, if everything remains the same.

There is a famous example in evolution where butterflies with black wings survived better in certain areas during the early industrial revolution in England, because the trees were covered with soot. Do note that here no such catastrophe was needed, just slightly different adjacent circumstances.

Features that appear designed

Let's continue with picture 2. Suppose that E5, adjacent to E4, has less food. In order to guide more food to the membrane, the pili develop more substructures. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B8 -> B9: increased surface area of the pili.

Now suppose that adjacent to E5 there is an environment that has still water. The current is none existent. In E5 the flagellum and the movement of the water were enough to ensure that enough food passed along the membrane. But in E6 it's a different story. Through random alteration, pili that happen to get movement parts attached to them are rewarded. Now the bacteria can not not only swim but also move water towards its membrane laterally. It's adapted to E6 (B11).

To the casual observer it might seem that the bacteria has a very useful device. A sort of fan that pushed food to its membrane. Somewhat similar to the mechanical arm of a digger. It must be designed, what else could explain it? There is no way that natural selection through survival of the fittest and random alteration could have produced it in the old environment E1. There is no reason for B1 in E1 to evolve such a device and have it be rewarded. This complex device must have been purposely designed by God to operate in E6.

However if you follow the history you can see that B1 changed into B11 through B3, B7, B8, B9 and B10. The pili received functional change upon functional change, eventually resulting in the mechanical fan.

We can now surmise that changing circumstances also contribute greatly to the rate of functional change over time. And thus to the creation of species that are fundamentally different (not just bigger better faster), or in other words to biodiversity. Changes randomly build on top of each other, producing functionalities for the organism that to the casual observer might seem designed.

Changing circumstances across time

Now that we looked at space, we can look at time. Changing circumstances across time are far better known, since they have been popularized in the media. For example: extinction events like the fall of the dinosaurs. When circumstances change in the same environment the effect on evolution is much more dramatic. Suddenly individuals find themselves possessing the right adaptations or not.

Let's look at picture 3. In environment 1 random alteration produces B2, B3 and B4. B3 and B4 are alterations that survive better than B1 in the adjacent environments of E2 and E3 (picture 1 & 2). However in environment 1 they are of little use. So the bacteria of type B3 and B4 that remain in E1 have small numbers. The successful adaptation for E1 is B2, with the larger flagellum that allows it to move faster and thus catch more food.

Now let's suppose that E1 suddenly changes. Due to volcanic activity the ocean floor of E1 sinks several meters. Suddenly the large number of B2 and small number of B3 die out due to the increase in water pressure. The small number of B4 flourish to become dominant.

Similar to the changing circumstance over space, we can see that changing circumstances over time also contribute to the process of natural selection, drawing the mainstream focus of evolution theory even further from survival of the fittest via random alteration as the engine behind evolution, in favor of changing circumstances.

picture3: click to enlarge.

Evolution via survival of the fittest in a non changing environment

Lets now take a look at what the mechanisms from the popular media focus accomplish on their own, via picture 4. Supposedly the main cause behind evolution is that the genes that are best adapted to the enviroment (including sexual selection) survive via competition.

Suppose you have bacteria B1 in environment E1. Through random alteration it develops three variations, a thicker membrane (B4), different shapes of pili (B3) and a larger flagellum (B2). In Cycle 1 the rock type did not change and neither did the pressure. There is no benefit to the alterations of B3 and B4, and these types eventually die out. B2 however can gather food more quickly than B1, B3 and B4 and therefore becomes dominant.

We can surmise that if the enviroment does not change and we solely rely on competition, species do not change functionally, or at least not very fast. The change is not in the function of body parts, but rather their efficiency. A good example are ever more exotic birds of paradise, larger and larger crocodiles, etc. No really new species are created. A bird of paradise remains a flying bird, it doesn't become an ostrich.

picture4: click to enlarge.

Conclusion

It maybe clear that the environment provides the main evolutionairy pressure that rewards functional change in an organism and genetic alteration is just the mechanism (quote: James Feston). And it is not only change in the current environment that drives evolution. Alterations may allow individuals of a species to occupy adjacent environments to the one occupied by non mutated members. The original focus as stated in the introduction can now be replaced.

Our new paradigm states:

Natural selection via changing circumstances.

Focus:

Changing circumstances over time and space.

Mechanisms:

Circumstantial selection of adaptations gained through random genetic alteration.

Mobility of individuals across space.
Some individuals have traits that provide a better combination of survival chances, fertility and reproductive succes in the circumstances they find themselves in. Succesive generations of these individuals gradually replace the old population or colonize new territory. In this succesion all traits are passed on, not just the ones that gave the competitive edge.

Theory:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations by the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is based on the change or absence there off, of circumstances across space and time. These changes reward those specific alterations that are best adapted to a new enviroment.

Media support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 (added 29-1-17)

Obviously none of the scientific content mentioned in this article is news. The point is that popular discourse should shift its focus towards changes in circumstances in favor of competition, alteration, adaptation and sexual selection.

Round Square Triangle Star

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

(first draft, comments welcome)

Square

I think politicians should do the right thing. Help people. Provide a better way. Make choices based on a moral compass instead of self interest.

So many are corrupt media addicts. Always there for the promotional snapshot. Never there to help the poor. Too busy enjoying the public money they funneled to their corporate buddies at the expense of the environment.

And it's not just the politicians. It's managers, doctors, the media, neighbors, family members. If only they could just do the right thing. You know, the thing that is right.

I protest. I show up at meetings. I ask the painful questions. I blog, twitter, shout at people. Do the right thing!

Me, the man that stands for something. You can build on me.

Round

People are usually pretty much ok. Nice to hang out with. You give some, you take some. I do as the rest and keep my head down. If i see someone in need, and i have the time, i will help them. Yes i will help them!

Me, the ok guy. Not too shabby, not too fancy. Little bit of this, little bit of that.

Triangle

People are animals. They chase their own interests, if not their own tails. I go with the flow. If opportunity comes my way.. Gotta look out for number one. Politicians are people that were able to conquer a pretty sweet spot in life. We all wish we could. I do look out for my people, but screw the rest. Only the have-nots complain. Only have-nots have morals. Once they have...

Me, the realist. A nice guy, but you gotta do what you gotta do. There is a time for love, and a time to be greedy. Don't pretend to be better.

Star

I am the one. I achieve. I conquer. I get things done. There are no obstacles. There is only the will. People are in charge of their own happiness. Don't like something? Change it. You can if you want to. I sure did. What is possible for me is possible for you, by default. If you don't succeed, blame yourself, not your environment.

Me, the master of my fate.

Box

I study. There seem to be various kinds of people. Rich and poor, smart and less smart, with strong or weak morals, and so on. In all combinations possible. How come?

If i were given the task to optimize society for happiness..

Lets see.. Most people seem to have basic needs. Housing, food, sex, a friend, and something to do. They get really grumpy without these things, specifically the French. Next, education seems to help people develop more mentally, which helps with relationships and general skills to deal with existence in this world. Personal freedom seems important but also freedom from negative actions by others.

Riots seem to occur less in social environments that are inclusive and have unbiased social rules, laws and government than in environments that contain large groups of somehow excluded people. Fairness seems to enhance the feeling of freedom and belonging, cohesion and all that.

Depending on the social environment and personal development people seem to either make social choices or selfish ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration) thus contribution to a social or anti social environment. It's a feedback loop thingy! Probably related to the flux capacitator.

Seems like a very programmable bunch, these humans. You can create all sorts if you have control. Philanthropist billionaires. Anti social beggars. Enlightened believers.

Let's tinker a bit. Perhaps some kind of constitution based on do no harm and no harm shall come to you. And let's be a bit fair and make sure everyone can afford the whole house-family-car-vacation thingy. So a couple of nice laws, agencies and institutions as well. Education surely makes for a better debate between neighbors.The media can serve as an outlet for social justice and warm fuzzy feelings. The deserving awkward boy gets the pretty good hearted girl, and vice versa. Etc.

Now how to get it all voted in. Seems that telling people they are wrong rubbs them the wrong way. And telling them the right way gets them really upset. Not Vulcans, these humans. You can tell a pround mechanic how to build a better car, or ask him to make sense of some designs you found.

Perhaps a feel good movie. That always gets them going. George Clooney and Julia Roberts. They adopt a rich snobby kid and a poor disgruntled one. Let's google...Gavin MacIntosh and Jaden Smith! Perfect. Then a lot of conflict scenes and a happy ending once they realize friendship is worth more than money and anger. Oh how nice to live in an utopia. And after that a bunch of fanfare and a great speech about reaching the moon because it's hard but very shiny. Got a studio for that just around the corner.

And guess what, seems like the happier a society is, the more stuff it produces. Always wanted a mansion in orbit. But it's probably gonna be a time share. Well one guy with all the toys is too North Korean for me anyway. So much jealousy. That guy must live in a fortress.

Me... the man that wonders. Usually i have no clue. A good place to start is by looking around and wonder.



....


Wow... far out dude!

The fear of Fascism

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

The fear of Fascism

(this text is a first draft. comments and suggestions are welcome via email.)

Fascism. Short definition: our own come first. Consequence: horror. Examples: Hitler and Mussolini. In recent times all kinds of people have been telling us that fascism is back, or that fascism is on the rise again. Politicians, reporters, activists, etc. As examples they use the so called right wing movements in Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Russia, etc. They mention leaders like Wilders, Trump and Le Penn.

You the reader might ask the following questions.

Is this true?

What typifies a fascist movement?

What environmental circumstances are needed for fascism to rise?

Or if we dig a little deeper:

What actually is fascism?

How do humans come to this behavior?

How do they behave normally?

And in conclusion:

Is todays world indeed going to hell in a hand basket?

The easy questions

The word fascism comes from the Latin fasces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), which translates to bundle of rods. It means together we are stronger. There are many definitions of what the word means today. I choose to define it via the main ideas of the recent historic examples which the vast majority of historians classify as typical of fascism.

Fascism: our own groups needs come before those of any other group because our group is superior. We have the right to take what we need, and we will do so united.

Typically (historically) a fascist movement consists of those that believe they are superior to others. The group is always led by a great leader. A single person who embodies the movement. There is only one truth, the worldview of the movement.

The circumstances in which the movement rises are those of political, social and economic chaos. When there is suffering without a direct known cause with a whole host of possible culprits. The great leader clears up the confusion by providing a worldview, identifying the enemies and setting a goal. Uncertainty is replaced by one clear 'reality'. Usually a high degree of the content that makes up the new reality is false, made up, intentionally or not.

The hard questions: human behavior

In fascism there seems to always be an enemy. Let's list a few mechanics behind human behavior and see how they work out in several adversarial scenarios. Pehaps we can gain some insight into fascism. Do note these are just short summaries taken from other texts.

The mechanics of discrimination

People discriminate in order to make sense of the world. Discrimination means the ability to tell one object apart from another. Objects differ by the features that stand out, to us as human beings, invidually or collectively. Another word for standing out is salience. The salience of the features an object has is not only based upon (initial) experience, but also on teaching and our imagination. Via the features we perceive as salient we create concepts of each object we encounter, whether it is a person or a piece of material.
A concept is an internal virtual representation of what something is. An orange is orange, round, slightly sour and edible. These concepts allow us to act quickly in future encounters. Reacting via stored data is much faster than gathering new data. Concepts also serve as tools for discrimination themselves. They bring order to our world, arranging it into understandable and related bits. Concepts are also not the end result of the discrimination proces, but rather it is a continuous feedback loop. Initial discrimation allows us to form concepts which then in turn guide further discrimination as new data comes in, not only of the inital subject (the orange) but also other subjects (fruit). This new data can alter or reinforce our concepts.

Concepts, opinions and beliefs

The data we use for our concepts mostly comes from incidental exposure to sources. Most concepts are formed subconsciously and without intent. If you never had an orange, and you happen to catch a conversation discussing their deliciousness, your choice in the supermarket two months later will be influenced even if you don't remember the conversation. You had formed an intial concept only containing delicious. If you have only ever seen a picture of an orange, you would still have unconciously formed a concept of round and orange even though you had no actual physical experience. If someone then offered you processed orange juice your concept would expand to include that taste, even though fresh orange juice tastes very different. If you made the concious decision to go to the local supermarket and carefully examine all it's produce for their shape, taste, smell, feel and weight, then your exposure would be deliberate and your concepts largely the results of intent. Color exposure still would be incidental.
An opinion is a judgement, viewpoint or statement concerning a certain topic or object. They are formed and maintened much in the sameway as our concepts are, and in fact rely heavily on the data our concepts provide. Similar to concepts, opinions can get reinforced or altered via experience, teaching and imagination.

A belief usually consists of a complex mix of opinions that had much more reinforcement over a greater span of time.

Our concepts, opinions and beliefs can change over time, fed by new information from experience, teaching and imagination. However there is a build in resistance to change, especially for opinions and beliefs. Our opinions and beliefs become part of our identity over time. Of who we are and how we act. We tend to defend them.

Complete realities

People like their realities to be as complete as possible in order to predict what might happen. They like to create a closed concept when it comes to anything. A concept that covers any and all possible outcomes from A to Z. If there is not enough information from sources like experience and teaching, we make up the rest with our imagination. This is a natural survival instinct. If you can predict a situation, you can act effectively. The unknown makes us fearfull, we lack control. Hence religion, doctrine and dogma. Any missing data in our concepts, opions and beliefs is automatically and eventually completed by our imagination.

The sufficient self

Healthy individuals can not accept another as completely superior to themselves. Even when the evidence is clear. It's a defense mechanism. Motivation for any action (for instance self preservation) becomes troublesome if you think of yourself as less. You think of yourself, when all things are considered, as equal or better. Even if you admire a certain quality in someone else. Imagination can play a big part when it comes to forming concepts to support this notion.

Group mechanics

People have an instinct to group. In order to do so we use discrimination (which can be fed by our imagination). We build up concepts of the people around us. If possible, we seek out similar individuals like ourselves in any situation.

Via interaction we determine what the commonly held beliefs and behaviors are. We adhere to these in order to belong and to be able to work together. We sacrifice some of our individual notions that might differ. These beliefs and behaviors become our group identity. They way we perceive the world, our own place in it, and the way we want to behave.

This group identity becomes part of our own individual identity. It gives us a home. We defend it at all costs. Most individual are part of several of these group identities (family, village, tribe, nation, but also football club, work department, political party, etc.).

Since the group identities are part of our own individual identity, it is very hard to accept a superior group identity above our own. All groups think of themselves as 'better'.

Usually during the formation of our identity leaders arise. Via the mechanics of discrimination we determine which individuals are the most powerful in our group. We seek safety and position by supporting them. This also gives them a bigger influence in shaping our group identity and determining subsequent behavior.

Once formed groups establish relationships with other groups based on a number of factors like relative power, wealth, familiarity, similarity, the compatibility of goals and leadership. We again use the mechanics of discrimination to guide us in this process by building concepts of the other groups. Do note that when there is insufficient data from other sources, we use our imagination to fill in the blanks.

Conflict

The relations between groups can be hostile. When facing a perceived or real threat a group will attempt to defend itself using one or various methods, depending on such factors as relative power, technology, beliefs, and familiarity with the enemy.

The same will happen when we find ourselves in competition with another group. As individuals can be selfish, for groups it's the default stance. Our own come first. It comes from our need, we need the object of the competition, and the intrinsic belief that all groups posses: 'we are superior'. Thus we have the right to take what we need.

When we perceive our physical power to be greater, and all other factors have neutral values, we usually choose to take. If the enemy is more or equally as powerful, we might negotiate.

However, for our own psychology it's usually healthier to first demonize the competition into an enemy. Most groups think very highly of themselves as moral beings. Simply attacking another group in order to gain material wealth is incompatible with our self image. There needs to be clear 'evidence' that the other group is in fact inferior and up to no good. So then we might create images like the Axis of Evil, the Eternal Jew, the Red Menace, the Decadent West, etc.

Variables of the enemy

Every enemy operates via a certain mechanism to produce a certain negative effect in order to serve a certain goal. The enemy can be known or unknown. This also goes for the mechanism. As for the effect, there will always be a perceived effect. The actual effect again can be known or unknown. The same goes for the goal. Goal and effect can be the same.

For instance, we the poor could be facing increased taxation by the rich lords. The effect is a decrease of our wealth. The perceived goals is an increase in theirs. We rebel. The lords come with an army and expel us from our lands. The actual goal they were after was to repurpose the land, not to gain coin. The rebellion gave them an excuse to come in.

There can be many or few enemies, mechanisms, effects and goals.

Scenarios

We listed some of the mechanics of how humans relate to the world and each other. We listed some of the variables when it comes to an opponent. Now we can draw several scenarios and attempt to ascertain what might happen. This of course might be more an exercise in speculation than science, without hard data.

Scenario 1

There is 1 known enemy who operates via 1 known mechanism which produces 1 known actual effect & goal. We are in the Middle East around 1992. Saddam used his army to occupy Kuwait, our dear dear friends, in order to get richer. Reality is complete. There is no uncertainty, no need to use our imagination. The only job of our leadership is to organize us to fight. We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'i will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

Scenario 2

There is 1 known enemy who operates with an unknown mechanism which produces 1 perceived effect in order to serve 1 known goal. We are in America around the year 1750. Our enemy is the native American. The native Americans have been known to raid our villages and kill cattle. They want us gone. For sometime our farmers have found dead cattle in the fields. A bacteria is the cause. However we lack the science to understand this. Reality is incomplete. The job for our leaders is to determine how the cattle is killed, and put a stop to it. Our leaders will have to resort to imagination in order to produce a complete reality.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'the native Americans are poisoning our cattle in order to drive us out. I will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

Do note, dead cattle was a perceived effect from enemy action. There was no actual effect from enemy action since there was no enemy action.

Scenario 3

There is an unknown enemy who operates via a known mechanism which produces a known effect with a unknown goal. We are in ancient pagan Rome around 100 AD. Christians, barbarians and slaves are inferior beings. Our houses have been set on fire in the middle of the night. We did not see who did it. Vague figures in the night, running around with torches. The fire produced homelessness but who did it and why? Reality is incomplete.

The job of our leader is to find out who the enemy is, what their goals is and fight them. Creative imagination is used. Slaves are powerless and in our homes, we would know if they were absent. Barbarians do not live in Rome. However Christians live among us. They are a strange people, worshiping 1 God instead of many. Perhaps they want us dead. Religion is a known cause of conflict.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'the Christians are burning down our houses because they want to purify the land. I will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

This leader might be a landlord, who himself set fire to his own neighborhood in order to clear out the poor and make room for development.

As you can see, we can draw up many many scenarios and speculate about how people might react. However for the purposes of this text one scenario is particularly interesting. Do note that in any case we humans seek out a complete reality. This can lead to dangerous consequences as we saw in the previous scenarios where 1 or 2 factors were unknown. What if everything is unknown? Including the numbers?

Scenario 4

There are an unknown enemies who operate via an unknown mechanisms which produce unknown effects in order to achieve unknown goals. We are in Germany in the year 1930. We are suddenly poor after the crash of 1929. A lot of us lost our jobs in the span of just a few months after. There is violence and mayhem all around. We do not know who caused this situation and why. We feel helpless.

There are many countries who opposed us or our friends in the past. England, France, Russia, Serbia, America. There are many groups and ways of thinking in our country. Communists, capitalists, liberals, democrats, hooligans, etc. There are many races we have been told. Jews, Slavs, Asians, Negroes, etc. All of these might have certain goals. All of these might have various methods. All we have is two perceived effects. Our poverty and mayhem in the streets. Reality is not only incomplete, it is highly confusing. We need closed uniform concepts in order to make sense of the world and make us into a coherent group.

The first job of the leader is to determine who we are, and who we are not. The second job of the leader is to find out who our enemies are, what their goals are, and how they produced our current predicament. Usually the existing leadership gets replaced. They were in charge when the world was still a place of certainty. Often their support dwindles because they can neither explain the new uncertainty nor were able to prevent it.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'we are the Aryan race, the one and true noble Germanic race deserving of world domination. The Jews are the main evil doers behind communism and capitalism which in turn seek to destroy the Aryan race in order to rule the world. Their lies make us fight each other. I will unite us and bring order. I will fight these enemies come follow me'. And then we do so.

Supporting texts: the mechanics of discrimination and the high horse effect. 

A hypothesis of fascism

Fascism is a natural behavior for any group to engage in. It's simply putting the needs of our own group above that of others, supported by the belief that our own group identity is superior to that of another.

We do it all the time everywhere. We put our own family above those of others. We put our own decent neighborhoods needs above that of the adjacent crappy one. Jocks are better than Nerds. Yankee fans are superior to Red Sox fans. True red blooded Americans are more deserving of the worlds resources than Muslims. Islam is the only true faith and all heretics deserve to perish. Etc.

A fascist movement is a movement that is led by a great leadership in which a single closed world view provided by the movement replaces any and all preexisting other notions and questions about the world. In this world view the home group is deemed superior to all other groups and under threat by a multitude of foes.

Drawing on the previous descriptions of the mechanics behind human behavior we will assume this hypothesis of fascism and the definition of a fascist movement both as correct and proven going forward. This is OK for a purely philosophical text to do. It's simply so we can progress with the story. If you want to base policy on this text, actual research is needed.

Todays world and fascism

Now that we have claimed fascism as a natural behavior, we can once more return to the concerns of all those politicians and activists that keep warning us about the increase in fascism.

Fascism is natural everyday behavior. So what are they so worried about?

Well, they refer to fascism that is organized along similar lines of the historic examples. A fascism that is dominating the other types of human behavior, such as cooperation and compassion, trade and exchange. They fear the known consequences of these types of movements. Holocausts, mass arrests, deportations, racism, etc.

Are they right?

Well we need to examine if the circumstances are present that created the historic examples and if the current movements bear important similarities to the old ones.

Let's look at America. Generally middle class and poor people perceive themselves as suffering. They think they are worse off than before. Jobs are going overseas. Immigrants flood the country. Neighborhoods change. Cooperations seem to hold all the power. Sea levels are supposedly rising. There are worse storms more frequently. Everything is connected via the Internet. Globalization has done away with the old system of the West vs the rest (and with the winning). There is a media that feed their need for ratings by making every little occurrence terrifying breaking news.

In many European, Latin and Asian countries similar circumstances are present. Great leaders have arisen to give us a closed belief system of reality. They provide a means to make sense of the world again, and identify enemies, the cause of our misery.

In the Philippines a great leader is killing anyone perceive to be related to drugs. Not poverty is the cause of suffering, and thus drug use, but drug use itself is the cause of poverty. In America there is a great leader who claims the established politicians are the cause, along with Muslims and immigrants. He promises a wall along the border with a poorer nation, a registration for Jews Muslims and an end to the influence of 'the leftist cronies'. In the Netherlands a great leader claims that Muslim immigrants are destroying the country, along with the European Union and the establishment. He proposes to halt the progress of immigrants, reverse some of the influence of the Union and defeat the establishment. In Syria a great movement has sprung up that will clear out all the unbelievers and their corrosive behavior, in order to establish the one true Islamic state.

Many of these leaders and their movements are quite recent. Post 1990 factors like globalization first became significant in peoples lives and the old world view of the west vs the rest broke down, leaving a lot of uncertainty.

As far as this author can determine, the people that warn us about an increase in fascism seem to have a point. We could devolve again in a world that is typified by conflict between self obsessed groups, ending the post World War 2 era of international cooperation and exchange (many countries do work together well currently and things like scientific ideas flow freely).

Do note, in this text we only look at fascism and the behavioral mechanics behind it. We do not examine the motivations of those that ring the alarm bells. Fascism can take many forms and outward appearances. Many well intended movements can devolve into this behavior. The fascist left has killed as many people in the world war 2 era as the fascist right.

Conclusions

Fascism is a natural behavior. Fascism can become dangerous when it overtakes our other behaviors. Fascist movements can cause wars and limit human development via the sole focus on one group. The world has become more uncertain since the end of the cold war, the rise of globalization and global pollution. A breeding ground for great leaders that will show us the one and only truth.
However, the world has not gone to hell in a hand basket just yet. There are many entities such as the European and African Unions, India, the United States, the scientific community etc. who promote cooperation and learning as opposed to self obsession.

Like anything else, all human behavior is fine, we just have to watch out for excesses and deal with them.